Case 3.3.6 Sit D

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It seems to me the ability to offer an uncounterable sub is an advantage not intended by the rules here, so A coach should not be allowed to gain it this way.

There is nothing in the rules that speaks to "countering" subs. If a coach sends a player to the table 16 seconds before a time out ends, that sub comes in but the other team cannot counter because there is no way that sub is going to get there before the warning horn.

You are trying to instill your sense of equity and fairness where the rules don't address it. That is what the rules makers at the high school and college level have been trying to stop for the last few years.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

You are trying to instill your sense of equity and fairness where the rules don't address it. That is what the rules makers at the high school and college level have been trying to stop for the last few years.

No, I'm trying to follow the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules," as the rule book itself states "It is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation."

[Camron Rust]

When an event occurs that allows one sub to enter a game at a time when it would otherwise be disallowed (injury, DQ, etc.), all other subs who have reported are also allowed to enter the game.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

You are trying to instill your sense of equity and fairness where the rules don't address it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, I'm trying to follow the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules..."

Same old argument, right?

Okay, let's talk consequences. Let's say an official did it BayState's way. Team B's sub would have to wait until the next whistle. After anywhere from 1-40 seconds, he gets in, and the game goes on.

Conversely, let's say an official does it Snaq's way. Team B's sub gets in right away, even though it's clearly after the warning horn. The game goes on.

First question: How much objection would you get either way? My best guess is that Coach B is more likely to object for a player not getting in that Coach A would by letting B's team get a sub in under the circumstances. Of course, this is the least of your worries.

Second question: What would your assigner do (WWYAD)? That depends on your assigner. Is he more of a letter-of-the-law guy, or a "fairness" guy?

Third question: If your assigner did indeed disagree with your choice, how much grief would you get? In the grand scheme of things, you'd be asked, "Oh, remember that thing at intermission where you...?" Philosophies would exchange, but ultimately, we're talking about a single sub during an intermission that's not clearly covered under the rules. I say it falls under minutia, and at worst, you'd get a "don't do it again" if your assigner disagrees with your call.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Same old argument, right?

Well stated.

As officials, we are asked to rule on many things that have minimum consequences to the game (all fashion police items immediately come to mind.) And the rules continually evolve so that something that is forbidden one year is legal the next. The NCAA just changed this rule so that subs after intermission must report by the final horn, not the warning horn. Maybe the NFHS will make that change next year.

Last season I had one game where the scorekeeper sounded the horn as we were starting the second period. She told me that a couple of players on the visiting team had not checked in. The visiting coach had no idea who ended the quarter...but the scorekeeper had written the numbers in the book. Same thing at half-time. By now, the visiting coach was really upset -- and said she had never had this problem before. Well...I had never seen this before, and had never had a scorekeeper so diligent. I surely don't keep track of the numbers of the 10 players who left the court at the end of the quarter. I don't know any official that does.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Never had a scorekeeper so diligent.

Was he our friendly, neighborhood, eagle?